Anyone have thoughts/response to this critique of Effective Animal Altruism?
I recently came across this lengthy and harsh critique of ACE in particular and animal-focused EA more generally and to some extent EA more generally. https://medium.com/@harrisonnathan/the-actual-number-is-almost-surely-higher-92c908f36517#.kq58x4oor
I don’t know what to think about it, since I don’t know much about ACE. I’m sure some of the concerns it raises are valid, but I don’t know how many.
I’d be very interested to hear what people think of it.
(And more generally, I think it’s important to promote the norm of openly entertaining and discussing criticism of ourselves)
While not directed specifically at this piece, the team at Animal Charity Evaluators did put together this blog post that addresses some of the points the article makes. If you have any more questions from that point, I’d be happy to discuss them.
(Disclaimer: I’m on the ACE board, but I’m not an ACE staff member, do not have perfect insight into their official positions, and do not speak on behalf of ACE. All opinions here are solely my own.)
All my answers and many more had already been covered in this comment thread when I encountered the post.
I’ve so far only looked at sections 5 and 6, because those were the most immediately interesting.
I think the critique of the Wild Animal Suffering research is very much on target. I’ve always thought that at best, WAS work should be relegated to basic questions that can be tackled in biology or ecology.
All of the WAS interventions I’ve seen discussed seem deeply wacky, misguided and likely to be radioactive for the movement.
I understand it’s called ACE now, not EAA.